The hypocrisy that I had seen from senior leaders at times on certain issues left a bad taste in my mouth from my service at times.

Lets forget DUI. How about crucifying guys for things as simple as "drunk in a bar". And I don't mean shithoused drunk, falling on the floor. I mean Texas ABC comes in, does a "Raid" on The Pelican, and a guy gets a Public Intox. For being drunk. In a bar.

And by drunk, I mean not able to drive car. Not violent, not stumbling. He was sitting at a bar drinking a beer watching the playoffs.

He was a civilian in a couple months. I avoided trouble because I hauled ass out a fire door, with about 50 other SNAs.

Click to expand...

What's with this mindset from big Navy that they won't even look at the case, you just get shown the door? Meanwhile, you could be the bane of everyone's existence but stay in flight school because you never left your house except to go to work.

What sucks is that a guy could be completely innocent, and it wouldn't matter because once he's arrested it's too late. Even if he got let go or the charges were shown to be bullshit in court. I guess I shouldn't even make that sound like a hypothetical situation since it just happened to the OP. Anyone can get arrested for anything.

I'm continually amazed (and frustrated) by people who break the law, then complain that "it's a stupid law" after they get busted. If we lived in a society where adherence to laws was optional it would be like living in Somalia. Great... we're in Somalia. The amount of rationalization that goes on blows my mind - especially when many of you claim to be "law and order" conservative Republicans. I'm sure most of the illegal aliens who cross the border think our immigration laws are stupid too, so no big deal, right? At the end of the day, people want "law and order" unless it's their ass on the line, then they want to weasel out of their predicament.

Click to expand...

I'm a "law and order" conservative Republican (actually more libertarian), and I complain about laws being stupid before I get busted for them (or even when I don't violate them). It seems like more and more laws are added to the books because politicians need to "appear" to be doing something, and therefore get re-elected. DUI is a perfect example. It used to be .10, now it's .08 - even though an alcoholic can have NO degradation of mental/motor skills and blow a .08. It's an arbitrary number... A 95 pound woman that never drinks will be smashed beyond belief and blow a .05...

Gun laws are also another great example. Pile on more and more laws to prevent "criminals" from getting guns, without really thinking that maybe criminals already break laws, so what's one more? If you're going to murder someone, you don't really give a shit if you own a magazine that has too many rounds for the state you're going to murder someone in.

We're also trying to outlaw Darwin. It's a crime to not have a kid in a car seat, or to not wear a seatbelt in a lot of states. You know what? Fuck 'em. If they're dumb enough to not realize that on their own - then we don't need them in the gene pool. But again, we gotta protect them. More and more I'm beginning to think that Idiocracy is not a fictional comedy - but a docu-drama sent to us from the future.

I'm continually amazed (and frustrated) by people who break the law, then complain that "it's a stupid law" after they get busted. If we lived in a society where adherence to laws was optional it would be like living in Somalia. Great... we're in Somalia. The amount of rationalization that goes on blows my mind - especially when many of you claim to be "law and order" conservative Republicans. I'm sure most of the illegal aliens who cross the border think our immigration laws are stupid too, so no big deal, right? At the end of the day, people want "law and order" unless it's their ass on the line, then they want to weasel out of their predicament.

Brett

Click to expand...

Brett,

I'm not saying it's a stupid law. However, an arrest shouldn't be something that damning. I understand not allowing someone to enter while the process is ongoing. However, if someone has been found not guilty all charges, or no charges following the investigation, then there should be no impact. The process is there for a reason. One person should not be given that kind of power. Even a mast can be appealed. However, there is no appealing an arrest, it either happened or it didn't. My biggest thing is the latest guilty and we're not going to wait and see if you're innocent attitude that the military has seemed to adopt.

My dad was arrested on a Tuesday morning at 8 am because his car broke down and a couple of incompetent police pounced on him because they received a report that someone driving a similar car was driving erratically (could have been him getting to the side of the road in a dying car). He passed a field sobriety test and blew a 0.0% BAC, but they still arrested him. At the station further tests and blood tests indicated no drugs in his system. This was mind blowing because he is a tea toker and a grown man in his 50s with close ties to law enforcement. I often drove that same car at the time, and if that was me at that time and place, I probably would have been arrested too and I would not be waiting for my FS letter to OCS because I would've never received a pro rec with my low GPA and an arrest on my record.

Just sucks that they think you have to be doing something stupid or with poor judgement to get arrested.

I'm not saying it's a stupid law. However, an arrest shouldn't be something that damning. I understand not allowing someone to enter while the process is ongoing. However, if someone has been found not guilty all charges, or no charges following the investigation, then there should be no impact. The process is there for a reason. One person should not be given that kind of power. Even a mast can be appealed. However, there is no appealing an arrest, it either happened or it didn't. My biggest thing is the latest guilty and we're not going to wait and see if you're innocent attitude that the military has seemed to adopt.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. As far as the judicial system, sure. Due process runs its course and the innocent person isn't charged or convicted of a crime. You can't really argue with the Navy/USAF using an arrest as a criteria for rejecting someone's application. Maybe it's not fair, but they have to draw generalizations which would include arrest as a possible indicator of trouble in a potential candidate. I would imagine if you looked at the statistical data, people who have been arrested are more likely to have other problems. Either way you look at it, the Navy can afford to be picky with who it lets in right now, and that's a criteria they've chosen to cull the herd of applicants. When the pendulum swings the other way and the Navy is hurting for people, then they can afford to look at each individual's circumstances.

An arrest isn't a conviction, a conviction is a conviction. Once we start looking at arrests as convictions we've defeated the entire purpose and logic of the legal system.

What would be the difference if the OP had been arrested for murder but then found not guilty at trial? Would he still be denied? If so, on what grounds? I think his spot getting pulled is a load of horseshit. I have a foot to stand on too, I was rolled up in high school and the charges were subsequently dropped and guess what, here I am.

An arrest isn't a conviction, a conviction is a conviction. Once we start looking at arrests as convictions we've defeated the entire purpose and logic of the legal system.

What would be the difference if the OP had been arrested for murder but then found not guilty at trial? Would he still be denied? If so, on what grounds? I think his spot getting pulled is a load of horseshit. I have a foot to stand on too, I was rolled up in high school and the charges were subsequently dropped and guess what, here I am.

Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing that point. It's not a "fair" way to discriminate between good and bad applicants, but you have to admit that it makes sense from the military's POV. It's a no-brainer.

What's with this mindset from big Navy that they won't even look at the case, you just get shown the door? Meanwhile, you could be the bane of everyone's existence but stay in flight school because you never left your house except to go to work.

What sucks is that a guy could be completely innocent, and it wouldn't matter because once he's arrested it's too late. Even if he got let go or the charges were shown to be bullshit in court. I guess I shouldn't even make that sound like a hypothetical situation since it just happened to the OP. Anyone can get arrested for anything.

Click to expand...

That statement is way too broad to be accurate. I know a couple of guys who were IN the military, got arrested and 'charged' with a DUI but then had the charges dropped.
Until they were dropped the individuals lost their security clearances so they could not fly until the matter was fully adjudicated.
Once the charges were changed to reckless driving and excessive speed, then they reapplied for their security clearance and got back in the aircraft. (1 was a pilot, one was an AW).
Hell, one guy was IN COMMAND of a squadron and he fought to get it dropped down and was allowed to remain in command.

Before you get your wings however, you are expendable in the Navy's eyes. Until you are qual'd you are just a percentage; how many can we get rid of through various means and still make our production goal?
If you are NOT in the military and get arrested, have the charges dropped but still get rejected, that's tough. There are far more applicants than we have slots open.
It is fair? You can argue that its not, but it is how the Navy operates. They can afford to reject a candidate for one incident because the Navy has the power when your applying. There are plenty of folks with comparable grades, the same test scores and did not get arrested and charged for DUI. So, they Navy will reject candidate A with the police record in favor of candidate B who may be almost exactly the same but have not had a run-in with the law.
Once you get your wings, the dynamics are changed a bit. If the Navy decides to get rid of you then that opens a hole in a unit that Big Navy needs to fill immediately.

That statement is way too broad to be accurate. I know a couple of guys who were IN the military, got arrested and 'charged' with a DUI but then had the charges dropped.
Until they were dropped the individuals lost their security clearances so they could not fly until the matter was fully adjudicated.
Once the charges were changed to reckless driving and excessive speed, then they reapplied for their security clearance and got back in the aircraft. (1 was a pilot, one was an AW).
Hell, one guy was IN COMMAND of a squadron and he fought to get it dropped down and was allowed to remain in command.

Before you get your wings however, you are expendable in the Navy's eyes. Until you are qual'd you are just a percentage; how many can we get rid of through various means and still make our production goal?
If you are NOT in the military and get arrested, have the charges dropped but still get rejected, that's tough. There are far more applicants than we have slots open.
It is fair? You can argue that its not, but it is how the Navy operates. They can afford to reject a candidate for one incident because the Navy has the power when your applying. There are plenty of folks with comparable grades, the same test scores and did not get arrested and charged for DUI. So, they Navy will reject candidate A with the police record in favor of candidate B who may be almost exactly the same but have not had a run-in with the law.
Once you get your wings, the dynamics are changed a bit. If the Navy decides to get rid of you then that opens a hole in a unit that Big Navy needs to fill immediately.

Click to expand...

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for some people to wrap their minds around. Probably the result of "scoreless" soccer games and the "everybody's a winner" mindset which permeates our society.

I would argue you're always expendable in Big Navy's eyes. Goes with the whole "taking casualties in combat" thing.

Click to expand...

Not disagreeing, but casualties is a cost of doing business in combat. Kicking folks out for a civil matter is a bit different.
My use of expendable is as an "admin loss" vice a "combat loss" but I do see your point.

The officer's exact words were " You rushed through that left turn". Then made me do a field sobriety test. I failed and now I'm here. Like I said, the DA didn't even file the charges. It was just an arrest.

Click to expand...

So call me nitpicky- but you FAILED FSTs after two beers?? Where you then asked to blow or taken to the station/hospital for further testing?? What EXACTLY made it a "bad arrest"?? Did he do paperwork wrong or was there some other issue??

(Sorry...I know that post was a bit back...but I usually avoid threads like this because of the heated opinions that normally present themselves.)

So call me nitpicky- but you FAILED FSTs after two beers?? Where you then asked to blow or taken to the station/hospital for further testing?? What EXACTLY made it a "bad arrest"?? Did he do paperwork wrong or was there some other issue??

(Sorry...I know that post was a bit back...but I usually avoid threads like this because of the heated opinions that normally present themselves.)

Click to expand...

The base command chief here (AF) was out with the gate cops one Friday night watching their 100% DUI check for a few hours. During a lull he decided to try the field test. After having been at work 18 hours he failed it stone cold sober.

On the acceptable losses front, there's a huge difference between sending folks into combat knowing they'll be taken out by the enemy and taking them out yourself.